As for the Warhead strength, keep in mind the penetration.
The Crater of a Missile is always shaped like a Pyramid, so the root of your warhead strength is how many layers you can penetrate with a single hit.
So, WH 4 penetrates 2 layers, WH 9 penetrates 3, WH 16 penetrates 4, and so on, it's always squares.
But WH 6 will penetrate 2 layers as well, and WH 15 will penetrate 3 layers.
This is of course only important if you intend to quickly strike down a target.
If the enemy has 20 levels or Armor and you want to sandpaper it, everything above Strength 4 will generally prove to be useful over time.]]>
waresky wrote:First ,u r Welcome here.
Second 'am know what u r mean but my english r damned low level for helping u in a deepest discussion.
So u can wait for another good "pro" there.
ive changed entirely my Naval "Missile" doctrine.
ive ONLY Anti--missile ships now..and am build a strong "DeckGun" armed (AND heavily Armored-fast) battleships.(from gunboat to BB).
Missile are very wastage resource thing..
See ya.
Second 'am know what u r mean but my english r damned low level for helping u in a deepest discussion.
So u can wait for another good "pro" there.
ive changed entirely my Naval "Missile" doctrine.
ive ONLY Anti--missile ships now..and am build a strong "DeckGun" armed (AND heavily Armored-fast) battleships.(from gunboat to BB).
Missile are very wastage resource thing..
See ya.
This can work, but you saw how well it worked for the Chinese. If you go this route, keep two things in mind:
Your ships must be faster than any enemy they engage. If they're not faster than the enemy, your missile-armed opponents can and will disengage at will before you can get a shot off.
Between armor, shields, and point defense, your ships must be able to survive every last missile an enemy fleet carries. Unless you can sneak up on an enemy fleet (which is very difficult unless they're guarding a planet), closing with them will take much longer than the enemy shooting their magazines dry. That said, if you do get in range undetected (which you'll need damn good thermal reduction for), things should get ugly for the targets pretty fast.]]>
jRides wrote:
I don't know what to expect from the NPRs (never left my home system) so I think I'd be better off with a balanced force of interceptors and anti-shipping - at least initially. The armaments for interceptors I'm stuck on, I have a bunch of questions:
I've been concentrating on missile tech as per the NATO fighters, but I wonder for an anti-fighter role if gauss/lasers/meson cannons might the obvious anti-fighter weapon, are missiles viable against fighters or am I expecting too much from them?
I don't know what to expect from the NPRs (never left my home system) so I think I'd be better off with a balanced force of interceptors and anti-shipping - at least initially. The armaments for interceptors I'm stuck on, I have a bunch of questions:
I've been concentrating on missile tech as per the NATO fighters, but I wonder for an anti-fighter role if gauss/lasers/meson cannons might the obvious anti-fighter weapon, are missiles viable against fighters or am I expecting too much from them?
NPR's don't use fighters, however unless the attackign fighters/FACS/Ships use beam weapons themselves they will not come within range of your beam weapons unless you are fast eenougth to force them. So missiles are probably better A weapons as most fighters carry missiles
jRides wrote:My intention is the main Strikefighter toting size 4 missiles (WH7+, the 30-40k speed range) will also be used against fighters - but I can't help but think this is overkill, and a waste of an expensive missile better used against shipping.
Fighters can carry armour if a fighter has 2 or 3 pts of armour you will need a big missile to crack the armour with one shot (9 or more warhead) anythign else will take multiple hits which is ok vs a fighter as the hits will usually stack
jRides wrote:Steves interceptors from the AAR have size 1 missiles and he states their intended anti-fighter role, alongside adding anti-missile defence. Would it not be better designing a slightly bigger missile for an antifighter role WH2 at least, I can make a very fast small missile with decent range and over 1000% 1km/s which seems pretty much a guarenteed hit to whoever fires first?
A bigger warhead is better but he is using 1 missile for 2 roles which means he has more of them. Fighters do not move at 1kms so your hit chance vs that is irrelevant look at your hit chance as fast moving targets that is what counts
jRides wrote:While I can certainly do it in the design screen, can I give a size 4 fighter boxlauncher 4 x size 1 missiles and have them all fire as one, or rippled (like a rocked pod) - or will I still only get to fire 1 of them as it states "no internal reload"? Steve's NATO Interceptor design has 8 size 1 launchers I notice tho so I expect 1 shot only.
All missiles in box launchers can fire at the same moment. The no internal relaod means that there is no point carrying a magazine internally for reloading the box launchers they need a maintenance facility or hanger to reload]]>
jRides wrote:The RLN-6As and RLN-7Aa confuse me - what I think is that they are Drones where the 6A has points in Active and the 7A has points in EM - is this right? I initially thought once you designed these drones you could fit a sensor on them (I think thats Space Empires influencing me tho as thats the way drones worked there) but I can't see any way to do that, I gather that is the ability built in during missile design, and I will see what my missiles see.
They are missiles, rather than drones, with points assigned to Active and EM rather than to warhead.
Steve]]>
martinuzz wrote:Just to make sure.. A FAC can be up to 1500 tons, right?
It can be any size, but it can only have one engine, and if it is over 1,000 tons then it needs a bridge in addition to crew quarters. If it is 1,000 tons or under, then it doesn't need a bridge, which is why most people limit themselves to FAC's/GB's that are 1,000 tons.
Kurt]]>
martinuzz wrote:Heh. That opens up whole new lines of thought
Check out my "Max hull size" posts in the Bureau of Ship Design.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1135 <-- Thread.]]>
Vanigo wrote:You can load anything into a fighter bay if the bay's big enough.
You can load anything into a hangar bay if the bay's big enough. You can build underground PDCs to house the Thunderbirds team, the submersible aircraft carrier from "Battleship!" the movie, or even the Space Battleship Yamato. You can build 100,000 ton capacity hangar bays on 300,000 ton displacement generation ships to reload the box launchers on two of your 40,000 ton supercruisers simultaneously, with room for destroyer flotilla to spare.
Which is important, becasue it's the only way to reload box launchers away from maintenance facilities, and is why the NATO supercarriers in Steve's campaign have enough hangar space to squeeze in a destroyer when all of their birds are launched.]]>
And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.]]>
UnLimiTeD wrote:I don't think theres kinetic weapons yet.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.
And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.
And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.
Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers. Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that. But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.]]>
On_Target wrote:
Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers. Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that. But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.
UnLimiTeD wrote:I don't think theres kinetic weapons yet.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.
And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.
Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers. Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that. But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.
You can, but that is a VERY expensive use of minerals that most of us can find a better use for
That being said, mass drivers can only target your own colonies.]]>
Erik Luken wrote:
You can, but that is a VERY expensive use of minerals that most of us can find a better use for
That being said, mass drivers can only target your own colonies.
On_Target wrote:UnLimiTeD wrote:I don't think theres kinetic weapons yet.
Non-Energy weapons will probably be boosted by variety, but it's not that day yet sadly.
And yes, thats basically what I'm saying, Genocide is at best fun, but rarely ever profit.
It should be possible just because the drawbacks it has without radiation already exceed the gain.
Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers. Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that. But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.
You can, but that is a VERY expensive use of minerals that most of us can find a better use for
That being said, mass drivers can only target your own colonies.
Can't they target completely empty colonies, which you can make with the stroke of a pen?]]>
Vanigo wrote:
Can't they target completely empty colonies, which you can make with the stroke of a pen?
Erik Luken wrote:On_Target wrote:Apparently we finally can by using mass drivers. Not sure if there needs to be a mass driver on the other end originally or not, I'd have to check with my friend on that. But when we discussed it, he mentioned that we could now dump a few mass drivers and some minerals on an asteroid near a system's jump point, then have them lob the minerals at the enemy planet bases.
You can, but that is a VERY expensive use of minerals that most of us can find a better use for
That being said, mass drivers can only target your own colonies.
Can't they target completely empty colonies, which you can make with the stroke of a pen?
Yes, but I am not sure any enemy infrastructure is damaged. The climate will go to hell, but I think troops and infrastructure of your enemy will be unharmed.]]>
The first new order is 'Land on Specified Mothership (No Assign)', which can only be chosen when the destination is a fleet. This pops up the extra order box (the one used for ground units or teams) where you can select a specific mothership within the destination fleet on which to land, rather than the assigned mothership. This doesn't change the mothership assignment though, so you can send a fighter to land on a different carrier, perhaps for refuelling, but still use the 'Land on Assigned Mothership' order when it returns home again.
The second new order is 'Land on Specified Mothership (+ Assign)'. This works in the same way as above except that in addition to landing on a mothership, the parasite's permanent assignment is also set to that same ship. This creates an easy way to transfer fighters or FACs between carriers, or to send newly built fighters to their first carrier.
Steve]]>
Ty v much on advance,Steve...]]>
georgiaboy1966 wrote:IN this version and several previous, I have had combat ships under AI control, drop the weapons assigned to firecontrols. Therfore leaving the ship/base undefended.
Were they box launchers? I've seen this happen with box launchers, and I figured it was intended behavior. Definitely a bug if it's happening with other weapons, though.]]>
georgiaboy1966 wrote:
IN this version and several previous, I have had combat ships under AI control, drop the weapons assigned to firecontrols. Therfore leaving the ship/base undefended.
Were they box launchers? I've seen this happen with box launchers, and I figured it was intended behavior. Definitely a bug if it's happening with other weapons, though.
No, they were size 1 and 2 missile launchers, and rof 5 lasers]]>
jocan2003 wrote:Release note somewhere?
Heh. Steve doesn't do release notes.
Mostly you can scan the suggestions/bugs threads for the prior version and get a reasonably accurate picture of what's changed.]]>
Love it so far, Steve. Couldn't understand why NATO remained so passive during the Chinese-Soviet war, but that's democracies for you. I was a little worried that NATO was going to be so powerful that the story would become one sided. I see that events have moved to allay that threat.
Interesting that the only way NATO can bring significant forces to bear on the enemy opens way back to Earth. I hope that NATO knows what it is doing - I don't hold out much hope for the Soviets keeping anyone at bay if things go wrong down past Eridani.
How long will it be before the Eridani Republic has the capacity to impose its political will on the other members of NATO? If I had been a member state I would have pushed for associate status for each colony until they reached a certain size rather then the creation of a potential superpower.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I hope Civ 5 is delayed
and you have my permission to write some more ]]>